Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Public view – Backyard of private house -- Place of occurrence was at the backyard of the appellant’s house -- Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view -- Persons who accompanied the second respondent/ complainant were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house -- They cannot also be termed as public in general – Appellant discharged from the offence.

(Para 13)

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (14 of 2013), Section 13, 26 – Copy of Inquiry report – Right of victim -- Report of the Inquiry Committee was not given to the petitioner, as she was not an accused and the Inquiry Report did not find anything material against the accused person – Held, Inquiry Report ought to have been given to the victim as it is required to be given u/s 13 (1) to all the “concerned parties” -- Petitioner is a concerned party.

(Para 8, 9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the BNSS, 2023 is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court, however due to a misimpression regarding the date, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on two dates and on account of the same, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, he is ready to appear and face the trial -- Petition allowed, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on same bail bonds/surety bonds.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197 – Sanction for prosecution -- Earlier sanction declined -- Subsequent sanction given based on the same material -- In the absence of any other contra material which weighed in the mind of the sanctioning authority, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR – Scope of -- Framing of charge -- Effect of -- High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without considering the case on merits -- Appellants can apply for discharge, however, the scope of application for discharge is completely different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings -- While arguing a case for discharge, the appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document which is not the part of charge sheet, ground of abuse of process of law will not be available -- However, in a petition for quashing either u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law -- Impugned order set aside, writ petition restored.

(Para 5-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A, 287 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 359, 528 – Death by electrocution in Rolling Mill – Non-compoundable offence -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- When the deceased’s family absolves the accused of any negligence or rash act, it would be impossible for the prosecution to succeed during the trial -- Thus, quashing of cases u/s 304-A IPC, other than roadside accidents, can be quashed depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the role assigned to the accused, mens rea, and the guilt of the such person -- After the death, the petitioners helped the complainant family financially and emotionally -- Accident occurred in broad daylight, and as an adult, the victim should have been more careful while performing his duties -- It is not a case where the acts of the Rolling mill or the Manager can be termed as rash or negligent -- Inherent jurisdiction u/s 528 BNSS, 2023 invoked, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Fair trial -- Right of accused – Preservation of call details – Right to privacy of police officials -- Legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings -- While passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/ tower location details u/s 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/ trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A, 427, 279 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B -- Death by rash and negligent driving -- Fair trial – Right of accused -- Preservation of call details – Denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which is admissible u/s 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice -- Power u/s 91 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for production of such evidence, which would assist the Court in discovering the truth in the pursuit of justice -- Learned trial Court directed to pass necessary directions u/s 91 Cr.P.C. for preserving and production of the call details/ tower location details of the phone numbers mentioned in the application filed u/s 91 Cr.P.C

(Para 8-10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 480(6), 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 120B – Cheating – Non-conclusion of trial within 60 days -- Bail – Right of -- Charges framed on 31.05.2024, case is triable by the Magistrate -- First date for recording evidence was 14.06.2024 and 60 days completed on 13.08.2024 -- Accused-petitioner is in custody for more than two years -- Only one prosecution witness out of total 33 prosecution witnesses examined -- Accused cannot be continued in custody for an indefinite period and that too for no fault on his bail in conclusion of the trial as per the mandate of Section 480(6) of BNSS – Bail allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 – Cheque bounce complaint – Dismiss in default -- Complaint was filed on 18.12.2020 and thereafter, the appellant/ complainant was regularly appearing before the Trial Court, however, on 23.08.2024 the appellant could not appear as wrong date was noted by the counsel, complaint was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution -- Held, Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint, however, if the Magistrate finds that there was some valid reason for non-appearance of the complainant or the presence of the complainant was not required during the Court proceeding, he can very well exercise his discretion to adjourn the complaint -- While exercising the jurisdiction u/s 256 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration that the powers vested in it have to be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice -- Impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number.

(Para 11-14)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – Proceedings under DV Act – Inherent Powers of High Court :

Questions referred to Larger Bench for adjudication:

(i) Once Section 28(1) prescribes that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can it be held that application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is ousted?

(ii) In case Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not applicable, can an aggrieved person invoke power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

(iii) In case the aggrieved person is entitled to invoke power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can it be said that the same is limited only qua the issue of jurisdiction as held by Madras High Court?

Questions referred by the Ld. Single Bech answered as under:

i) Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. is applicable qua proceedings arising out of complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. The only exception is the cases where provisions of the Act of 2005 have been invoked in proceedings pending before Civil Court or Family Court.

ii) In view of answer to question No.(i), there is no need to answer question No.(ii).

iii) The power of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are subject to self-restraint. The same can neither be curtailed by statute nor by judicial order. In terms of dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar's case (1997) 3 SCC 261 and Surya Dev Rai's case  (2003) 6 SCC 675, Article 227 is part of basic structure of the Constitution of India and is even beyond Constitutional amendment.

(Para 3, 32)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446, 482 – Cheque bounce complaint – Absence of accused -- Forfeiture of bail bond – Presence of accused – Requirement of – Presence of an accused, where proceedings are semi-criminal/ civil in nature, should ordinarily not be insisted upon, if an application is moved for a particular hearing, unless the trial court needs to either examine the under-trial or his statement is to be otherwise recorded for proceeding further in the matter -- Impugned order directing the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the petitioner accused and initiating proceedings against his surety u/s 446 Cr.P.C. set aside.

(Para 1, 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148A -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Appeal -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-deposit of 20% of compensation -- Looking at the financial condition of the petitioner, directing her to deposit 20% of the amount as per impugned order shall result in jeopardizing her appeal being dismissed on account of non-compliance of the condition of deposit -- Condition of pre-deposit of 20% of interim compensation set aside, Ld. Sessions Judge ordered to proceed with hearing of the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 409 – Criminal breach of trust -- For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property.

(Para 23)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 462, 34, 37, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal breach of trust by Bank – Quashing of FIR – No allegation of entrustment of the property which the appellant-bank has misappropriated or converted for its own use to the detriment of the respondent No.5, as such, the provisions of Section 406 and 409 IPC would  not be applicable -- Since there was no entrustment of any property, the ingredients of Section 462 IPC are also not applicable -- Offences u/s 206, 217 and 201 of the IPC requires mens rea, the ingredients of the said Sections also would not be available against the appellant-bank --  FIR/complaint also does not show that the appellant-bank and its officers acted with any common intention or intentionally cooperated in the commission of any alleged offences, as such, the provisions of section 34, 37 and 120B of the IPC would also not be applicable -- Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank would cause undue hardship to the appellant-bank – FIR quashed.

(Para 23-31)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Power of -- Appellate court has the full power to review or re-appreciate or reconsider the evidence upon which the order/ judgment of acquittal has been based and there is no limitation, restriction in exercise of such power by the appellate court and the appellate court may reach at it is own conclusion on the same set of evidence, both on question of facts as well as on law.

(Para 14)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS – Recovery of Charas from rucksack/ pitthu-bag -- Right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted officer -- It was a case of chance recovery and the contraband was recovered from the rucksack, which the accused was carrying with him on his right shoulder and not from his personal search -- Personal search of the accused was conducted after recovery of the contraband -- Section 50 of NDPS Act is not applicable.

(Para 20)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 35, 54 – NDPS – Recovery of 840 gram Charas from rucksack/ pitthu-bag – Presumption -- It is not the case of the accused that the said bag did not belong to him -- From the front pocket of the bag, his voter ID was recovered -- Once a physical possession of the contraband by the accused has been established, the onus is upon the accused to prove that it was not a conscious possession – Accused has only pleaded that a false case has been lodged against him -- Accused held guilty. Madan Lal’s case (2003) 7 SCC 465 relied.

(Para 28-30)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) – Chatur Varshik Shradh of deceased father of convict – Interim bail -- Rape convict for 10 years -- Denial or curtailment or deprivation of interim release shall defeat the object and intent of reformation, which is the heart and core of criminal justice -- Interim bail granted commencing from 12th October 2024 till 20th October, 2024 with two police personnels.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Ingredients fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/ incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.

(Para 21)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Quashing of FIR -- Extreme action of committing suicide on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity.

-- In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide -- Relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations.

-- In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law.

Former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations -- It is for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

(Para 10-22)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Deceased humiliated in the official meeting -- Quashing of FIR – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court – Appellant-Senior officers convened a meeting with the employees of the company -- Company wanted around fifty to sixty office employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) --  Alleged that in the course of the meeting the deceased was humiliated by the appellants & he felt very bad about it and he committed suicide – No case against the appellants made out – Appeal allowed, Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 4, 23-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (2 of 2013), Section 13 – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Human Smuggling – Cheating – Compromise effected between the parties without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will -- FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 5-7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 389, 34 – Compromise quashing of FIR – Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion (Section 389 IPC) – Offence for which the accused have been charged are not of serious nature – Compromise will go a long way in ironing out the differences for betterment of future life of the parties – FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR/ Complaint – Duty of High Court -- Beyond holding that there are specific allegations, there is no other analysis by High Court -- Duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/ FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings -- Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other -- On 27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and stepbrother seeking for a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property and also sought a declaration that he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business – Complainant/ wife filed the criminal complaint on 01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property -- Provocation for the Complaint/ FIR is essentially the property dispute between father and son – FIR and Chargesheet quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- Allegations are vague, lacking in basic details -- The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband has already filed the suit for declaration – In DV complaint identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable – The case is instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process – FIR and charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 9-18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Charge-sheet filed -- There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

(Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Attempt to murder – Simple injuries – Effect of -- Question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law – Minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge u/s 307 IPC.

(Para 14-16)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- Injured eye-witnesses -- Sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight -- Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility -- If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34 -- Common intention -- There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention -- It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime -- Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act -- Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly -- Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act.

(Para 19)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 302 – Murder -- Common intention -- Appellants are related by blood, arrived at the crime scene armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun, dangs, and lathis within 15 minutes of the initial altercation, and subsequently attacked P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, and the victims -- During this attack, A-4, the father of A-1, raged by the incident of P.W.3 slapping his adult son A-1 and the pursuant altercation, fired with his gun at P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and the victims -- Thereafter, all the appellants fled together carrying their weapons -- It is evident that the appellants acted with a common intention to kill, seeking to avenge the slapping incident.

(Para 20)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 149 -- Common intention – Common object -- Determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within the domain of the trial courts, and at the most the high courts -- It should not be the role of Supreme Court to directly adjudicate issues of common intention and common object.

(Para 21)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216, 464 – Non-framing of charge -- Failure of justice -- No finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated.

-- Law is well-settled that in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

(Para 24, 25)

F. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- Independent witness -- It is settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable --  Prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witness. 

(Para 29, 30)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Additional evidence/ witness -- Summoning u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. – Object of – There may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side -- Determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case -- The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and in this section, the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code".

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Re-examination of evidence/ witness -- In the extract of Parivar Register, Ext. PW-10/B, the date of birth of the child victim “N” has been mentioned as 20.01.2006 and the date of birth of her eldest sister “R” has been mentioned as 10.12.1998 -- However, in Birth Certificate, Ext. PW-10/C, the name of child victim has wrongly been mentioned as “R”, who is the eldest sister of the child victim “N”, but her date of birth has been mentioned as 20.01.2006 -- Prima facie it appears that birth certificate, Ext. PW-10/C has been issued contrary to the record -- In order to clear the ambiguity and also to arrive at the just decision of the case, evidence of then Secretary, Gram Panchayat, is essential for just decision of the case and it cannot be said to amount to filling up of the lacuna or the abuse of process of law.

(Para 14)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 311 -- Additional evidence – Examination of witness not cited in challan -- Although the name of the witness proposed to be examined, has not been cited by the prosecution in the chargesheet, however, in order to clear the ambiguity and that there may not be failure of justice on account of some mistake in bringing the valuable evidence on record and also to arrive at just decision of the case, his evidence is essential to ascertain the age of the child victim -- Hence, the application filed by the State/prosecution allowed.

(Para 16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 29, 60 -- NDPS Case – Superdari of vehicle -- Confiscation of vehicle – Ground of -- Release of vehicle cannot be denied to the applicant on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated; rather a duty has been cast upon the Court to immediately release the vehicle to the rightful owner until the question of confiscation of the vehicle is decided by the Competent Court -- Pendency of the confiscation proceedings has nothing to do with the release of the vehicle -- Subject to the furnishing of sapurdari bond in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, vehicle ordered to be released.

(Para 8-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day of judgment for other accused – Quashing of -- Order of conviction for some accused and acquittal for other accused passed in the first half of the day -- In the second half, the Court first passed an order for sentencing of the persons who were convicted and only thereafter passed an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the appellant – If a summoning order is passed, either after the order of acquittal or imposing of sentence in the conviction, the same may not be sustainable -- Appeal allowed, summoning of appellant u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. quashed and set aside. Judgment by Constitutional Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira’s case (2023) 1 SCC 289 : 2022 INSC 1252 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17296 relied.

(Para 14-16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 190, 203 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Summon of accused -- Dropping of proceedings -- Once the Magistrate takes the cognizance and issues the process against the accused, then the Magistrate cannot put the clock back and drop the proceedings – Revisional Court was not right in returning the finding that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the application for dropping of the proceedings filed by the respondent/ accused.

(Para 12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Account frozen -- Whether the complaint for dishonour of cheque due to the reason ‘account frozen’ is maintainable under section 138 of the Act? -- Complaint u/s 138 of the Act is maintainable even if the cheque is dishonoured due to reason ‘Account frozen’.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), Section 41, 42 – FIR under Forest Act – Acquittal -- Non-mentioning of botanical name of forest produce – Effect of -- Legislature has consciously used the botanical name with some purpose and in the absence of any evidence of the botanical name, the prosecution version that the accused had violated the Rules framed under Section 41 and thereby violated Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act is not acceptable – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 1, 17, 19, 22, 23)

B. Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), Section 41, 42 – FIR under Forest Act – Guchhies-forest produce -- Mere fact of not handing over the permit to the accused is not sufficient to implicate the accused when the person who had handed over the Guchhies had a valid permit with him.

(Para 21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. -- Arrears of maintenance more than 1 year -- Warrant for realisation -- Learned Magistrate proceeded to issue a warrant for recovery of maintenance for the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- which admittedly is arrears of maintenance of more than one year -- Once the arrears of maintenance of one year were paid, nothing survived in the petition and the warrant of realization of Rs.1,20,000/- could not have been issued by the learned Magistrate – Order set aside.

(Para 1, 9, 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 71, 87, 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Closing of evidence – Remanding back of case for re-trial -- Trial Court acquitted the accused as material witnesses did not appear for their cross-examination and thus, their deposition could not be read in evidence -- Trial Court without resorting to the coercive method for summoning of witnesses, closed the evidence of the prosecution -- Trial Court would proceed with the trial with the examination of the witnesses afresh as per the directions given by learned Appellate Court in the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 years -- An accused or an under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial -- When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious -- Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude -- Out of 48 witnesses, only about 16 to 18 witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 195 (1) (a) (i), 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- No complaint by the Court which had passed order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person -- Requisite application of mind by the Court by invoking criminal liability of the petitioner for offence u/s 174-A of IPC was apparently lacking order forming the basis of FIR -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed.

(Para 9, 10)

A. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 22 – Court of Session -- Special Court – Power of -- Court of Session exercising jurisdiction of the Special Court u/s 22 Sub-section (3) of the NIA Act, can exercise all the powers that have been conferred on the Special Court under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.

(Part 31)

B. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 21, 22 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 15, 16 – UAPA -- Rejection of bail by Session Court/ Special Court -- Orders passed by the Court of Session u/s 22(3) shall be appealable u/s 21 of the NIA Act -- An appeal would lie before the Division Bench of High Court.

(Para 3, 31, 32)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- For attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.

(Para 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Fleeing away from marriage -- Cheating -- Quashing of FIR -- A hapless young woman who went along with her parents’ decision to marry  but at the last minute developed cold feet to enter a charade of a marriage – It cannot be construed to as ‘cheating’ as an offence under the IPC nor can it foist a prosecution on her -- Decision to remain silent can at best be injudicious but not dishonest -- FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence of ‘cheating’ – At best, offences under Sections 417, 418 and 500 of the IPC can be said to have been made out against the Applicants -- Said three Sections are non-cognizable in nature -- FIR quashed, with liberty to initiate appropriate action as may be permissible under the law in respect of the said offences i.e., Sections 417, 418 and 500 of the IPC so advised and if he so desires.

(Para 15-17.1)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437, 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120B -- Anticipatory bail -- Onerous condition -- Court can impose necessary, just and reasonable conditions while enlarging an accused on bail -- Any other condition not specified u/s 438 Cr.P.C. may also be imposed by the Court, but the other conditions, which may be imposed, must be ejusdem generis as the condition specified u/s 438 Cr.P.C.  -- Condition of tendering a FDR of Rs. 3,90,00,000/- on the case file by the petitioners was highly unwarranted, unreasonable and onerous and is liable to be set aside – Condition set aside.

(Para 10-17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Section 145, 146 – Issue of possession – Decree of civil court – Effect of -- Proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. pertain to the factum of possession of a party and not the right to possess which is to be determined by the Civil Court -- Once the factum of possession and right to possess both have been adjudicated upon by the appropriate Civil Court, the question of initiation of proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. does not arise.

(Para 12, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 105 – Proclaimed person – Accused abroad -- Petitioner had left for England on 19.05.2019 and though the summons were issued vide order dated 19.04.2019, the same was not received back and thereafter, when the non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner vide order dated 06.06.2019, received back unserved with the report that she has gone to England -- A person cannot be said to “abscond” or “evade” the execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of the warrant – Impugned order was not passed in consonance with the mandate of Sections 82 & 105 of Cr.P.C. and is not sustainable in the eyes of law, set aside.

(Para 8-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed offender – Quashing -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued for 04.11.2022 -- Proclamation warrant were fixed on 03.11.2022 at the house of the petitioner, public place and notice board of the Court -- On 04.11.2022, as one month’s time has not elapsed after the publication, the case was adjourned to 16.12.2022 awaiting the presence of the petitioner – Held, the trial Court could not extend the time by simply adjourning the case for awaiting the appearance of the petitioner and was mandatorily required to issue the proclamation against for publication thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C -- Apart from that, the proclamation was not read publicly in some conspicuous place in the town/ village in which the accused ordinarily resided and the proclamation was not duly published – Impugned order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside.

(Para 1, 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8) -- Reinvestigation/ Further investigation -- Right of an accused at the stage of investigation – Accused has no right -- Charge sheet submitted before the Court concerned -- Discrepancies related to date(s) and time would be considered by the trial Court at the stage of trial and the same are not required for seeking re-investigation/ further investigation in present case.

(Para 40)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Nikah/ Muslim marriage in autorickshaw – Conversion of religion -- CBI enquiry – Witnesses of marriage stated that neither did they participate in the marriage nor have signed the marriage certificate -- Marriage solemnized appears to be an eye wash as by no stretch of imagination, a Maulvi/Quazi under the Mohammedan law can be expected to perform NIKAH in an auto-rickshaw, without the presence of two witnesses coupled with the place of solemnization of marriage stated to be at Masjid, raises a profound and conspicuous suspicion which needs to be debunked by conducting probe through an independent and Central agency i.e. CBI.

-- CBI will conduct a thorough and fair inquiry into the matter particularly from the perspective as to whether any such attempt of coordinated and illegal conversion for the sake of marriage has been made and the motive behind the marriage of getting it solemnized in an auto-rickshaw without the presence of any witnesses and an attorney; and also whether the Maulvi/Quazi was competent enough to perform the marriage as per the desired customs and rituals of the Muslim religion, at such a ‘place’, and also to inquire into the credentials of the attorney.

(Para 2-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 161, 162 -- First Information Report (FIR) -- First version of the incident as narrated by the Police Constable would be required to be treated as the FIR -- FIR was lodged much later based on the statement of PW-11, it would be relegated to the category of a statement u/s 161 CrPC -- Same could not have been treated to be the FIR as it would be hit by Section 162 CrPC -- Prosecution is guilty of concealing the initial version from the Court and hence, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the prosecution on this count.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120B -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Daily diary report  (Roznamcha) -- Since the Police Constable (PW-12) claiming to be an eyewitness to the heinous assault had reported at the police station with the crime weapons, there was no reason whatsoever as to why his statement would not have been recorded immediately on his arrival at the police station -- A reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court that the statement of (PW-12) would definitely have been recorded in the daily diary (roznamcha) but his version may not have suited the prosecution case and that is why, the daily diary entry was never brought on record -- Non-production of the daily diary is a serious omission on part of the prosecution -- Neither the disclosure statements made by the accused were proved as per law nor the same resulted into any discovery which could be accepted as incriminating inasmuch as the requisite link evidence was never presented by the prosecution so as to establish that the recovered articles remained in the self-safe condition from the date of the seizure till the same reached the FSL -- Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the appellant-accused and acquitted them of the offence charged.

(Para 20, 48)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 21, 26, 27 – Admission to doctors – Confession to Medical officer -- Admissibility of -- Confessions are ex-facie inadmissible in evidence for the simple reason that the accused persons were presented at the hospital by the police officers after having been arrested -- As such, the noting made by the Medical Officer (PW-2) in the injury reports of accused/ appellant would be clearly hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Court not inclined to accept the said admissions of the accused as incriminating pieces of evidence relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act.

(Para 40. 41)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Disclosure statement -- Identification of crime place -- The circumstance regarding identification of place of incident at the instance of the accused is inadmissible because the crime scene was already known to the police and no new fact was discovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements -- This disclosure is irrelevant.

(Para 41, 45)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A -- NDPS case -- Second sample to FSL – Permissibility of -- As per the FSL report, nothing to indicate, any damage to the seals or that the sample was in a damaged condition -- Merely because the presence of Codeine is not mentioned in the FSL report in the sample of Rexcof would not amount to compelling circumstances under which the second sample was required to be sent for reanalyses to CFSL, Chandigarh – Application of prosecution for re-testing dismissed by Ld. Trial Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 12, 13)

A. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Maintenance -- Family court has jurisdiction for trying cases both under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 20 of the Act of 1956.

(Para 50)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 20 – Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Maintenance to major daughter u/s 125 Cr.P.c. granted by Family court – Challenge to – Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property -- Section 125 Cr.P.C. limits the claim of maintenance of a child until he or she attains majority -- Held, since the order has been passed by the family court which has jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as well as application under Sub-clause (3) of Section 20 of Act of 1956, no purpose will be served in interfering with the revision and relegating the daughter to move a fresh application before the same court under different provision of law i.e. Section 20(3) of Act of 1956 -- No interference is required with the order impugned.

(Para 36, 51-53)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 – Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 136 – Conviction in 21 case – Concurrent running of sentence – All cases decided on the same day -- Total period of sentence awarded to petitioner would come to 21 years in respect of the period of convictions so awarded -- Petitioner is entitled for benefit of discretion contained in Section 427 of Cr.P.C. and the same deserves to be exercised to meet the ends of justice.

(Para 4, 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427, 482 – Conviction in 21 case – Default sentence – Concurrent running of sentence – Permissibility of -- For default sentences, the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. did not direct for concurrent running of the sentences -- Default Sentences in default of payment of fine shall run consecutively if he does not pay the fine.

(Para 7)

National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), Section 29A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cognizance in complaint -- Vicarious liability of Directors of Company – Role of -- In the absence of the averments as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 50 in the complaint, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence against the third to seventh accused, who are allegedly the directors of the first accused company -- Complaint stand quashed against the third to seventh accused.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 --  Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Automatic cancellation of bail -- Whether High Court can impose a condition of automatic cancellation of bail order -- Cancelling of bail order directly affects freedom of a person which affects his fundamental rights -- Reasonable opportunity of hearing is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India – Held, if there is an automatic cancellation of bail order, then valuable right of natural justice is denied to accused -- Such condition could not be made part of the bail order.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 362 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 403 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Automatic cancellation of bail -- Review of order -- Court is barred from reviewing or altering its own order under Section 362 of Cr.P.C./ 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 -- Both sections are pari materia -- While recalling a judgment Court has to apply its mind and has to look into the facts of the case, therefore, bar u/s 362 of Cr.P.c. or new Section 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 will be operative, but there are certain exceptions when Court can recall/relook into the judgment and violation of fundamental rights is one of the said exceptions -- If condition of automatic cancellation of bail order is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then order will be revived and Court can consider the application for modification also.

(Para 7)

A. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 22, 27, 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – FIR under Drugs Act -- Quashing of FIR -- Police did not have the powers to register an FIR or even conduct an investigation concerning offences u/s 27 of the 1940 Act -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10-15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Cheating -- Deliberate false representation with an intent to deceit, leading to the delivery of property, is an essential requirement to attract mischief of an offence u/s 420 of IPC -- Statements u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. indicates that the petitioners offered injections at inflate prices without a valid licence aiming to deceive them -- However, there are no allegations of delivery or sale of actual property -- Thus, the essential elements to attract an offence under Section 420 of the IPC are missing – FIR quashed.

(Para 7, 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- NDPS Case -- Suspension of sentence -- Recovery of 18.17 grams of heroin – Conviction for 4 years – Appeal against conviction – Appeal raises arguable issues -- The applicant has undergone an actual sentence of 06 months and 10 days and there is no other case registered against him -- Hearing of the appeal is likely to take some time -- Sentence suspended.

(Para 2, 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Withdrawal of complaint -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings u/s 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420 IPC have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint -- Petition allowed subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397(2) – Examination of witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. -- Interlocutory Order – Maintainability of revision -- Order rejecting the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order -- Revision petition is not maintainable against the dismissal order.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397(2) – Examination of witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Locus standi -- Petitioners are neither complainants nor were they cited as witnesses in the original complaint filed by their brother in the year 2012 -- Petitioners were not examined during preliminary, pre-charge, or post-charge evidence stages and therefore, had no locus-standi to file the application u/s 311 Cr.PC.

(Para 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- Right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct -- A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed -- In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way.

(Para 32)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- In the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part -- In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail -- But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted --  It would run  counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence.

(Para 32)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216 -- Charge-sheet can be amended/altered at any stage before pronouncement of judgment -- Either prosecution or accused can file application for amendment of charge and in case Court comes to conclusion that charge required to be amended then Court can suo moto amend charge-sheet at any stage before judgment is pronounced.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Criminal breach of trust – Cheating -- Charge-sheet u/s 420 of IPC cannot be framed simultaneously along with offence u/s 406 of IPC.

(Para 7)